Late last night, I launched a script called Depression Noise. In a sense it is a sequel to Parakeet Poet, in that it solves the same problem, how to dynamically generate poetry.
Depression Noise currently outputs something like this:
[[MORE]]
promised . tried the if I . promised I’d sorry } / right , = sorry loved
it find if it you “ , I } I I } , never I
was looks I’d I the don’t {
. } it { if I don’t looks again I’d I again don’t thought was don’t tried You I’d } if if if .
I { looks that’s I . know tried I know I’d if promised I I know I’d something / something know I I thought
don’t ] find again You like – . I like I * * again as if like know You [
I’d .
* – . = loved looks [ and [ / the know I as something ] I } know again loved thought ” ,
know find
You I’d thought find don’t that’s sorry that’s know [ I I find was I . [ know never ,
sorry I . was – was
thought + if like as I if it I was I { I , ]
you something I you looks the – / [ as the know looks like same know don’t right know
the that’s I . I’d know I . = never
right thought know “ , = * if * if – loved tried , loved [ again
+ You
don’t it if same * ] it you
and . *
. I
[ find know . thought never
. it / – . like = ” , right I if loved = , if as I if tried .
if * I same * I . that’s find as “ , } never * like , thought if ” , something – find something
know never never looks loved [ if sorry don’t it like . “ , * again don’t I
I don’t I { it You right as I ] I . tried * the you like looks
again ” , if . it ] ] like .
. know don’t again , looks was know loved same as I know , ]
This is fundamentally different than Parakeet in general approach. Rather than an odd Frankenstienian mishmash of parts of poems, this one attempts to create a semi-cohesive, if more abstract, object.In college I was playing around with a couple of ideas in relation to poetry. One of them was a method of creating abstract poetry. In it, I would write stream of consciousness when I was in a certain mood, but I would turn and move the paper between each word or phrase. In the end, this consistently created an object that represented the emotion while obscuring any real sense of language. Essentially, it eliminated all organization in order to present an idea more simply and universally. It was a solution to the problem of present a genuine emotion without relying on the context to recreate it.The second idea was that of transcendent objects and dynamic context. This is as simple as dry erase marker and a window looking outside. My dry erase board broke, so I started writing notes to myself on a my dorm window in college. One day, I wrote myself a note along the lines of “Keep Going”. That day it rained in the morning. A nice spring thunderstorm, dark rolling clouds that made everything a dull desaturate. But that afternoon it was a bright spring day. I found myself noticing that the same note was an optimistic reinforcement during a morning thunderstorm was a condescending self ridicule during the spring day. The context drew from far more than the weather, but I know that demonstrating the dynamic context visually helped me think about it.I’ve always been fascinated with visual elements in poems. For the longest time I understood my experience with text as the same as my experience with what the text meant. For me, Ceci n’est pas une pipe was completely illogical question to me. This is a pipe. But, text is nothing more than an image, and as such it can benefit from a great many ideas from visual art. And the idea of a cohesive object that says the same thing at every level of understanding is amazing to me. Every element pointing to the same idea, the object would be ridiculously amusing. You could analyze it for days, but why would you? It means the same thing at every level.Anyway, all of this is to say that Depression Noise uses an array made up of every word of a short stream of conciousness I wrote down while feeling like my writing wasn’t worth very much to dynamically create an object that expresses those same emotions while being conceptually unique to the individual that generated it. It’s like if I gave everyone a snowflake, if we all believed that snowflakes were actually unique. (Crystal formations make this mathematically impossible). But, it was my snowflake that made someone think about something, probably a little sad, but something.
In an ideal world, I’ll work on it a little more, give it a little more dynamics in the form the object takes in order to really communicate the differences in a way that is easily noticed. Then, I would work on Parakeet a little more, mold the two into a program that uses elements from both dynamically combined with user input to help the reader tailor the object to their own experience without them recognizing what’s going on, probably utilizing text input from the reader and filtering through it using some principles from fortune telling to glean insightful details without being overt. An object that takes the form of a love poem to a love-struck reader or a scathing rebuke to someone slighted. But to have the real work, the object behind the object, only have meaning in its purpose of creation.
I dunno. I just wanted to ramble for a minute I think.
